Hi Richard (and others),
I am CC'ing this to the Debian Bug Tracking System, the ilisp mailing
list and the debian-legal list. I hope that's okay.
Thanks for your reply.
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> Regarding ilisp, I suspect we were not careful enough about studying
> the license and noticing the somewhat-self-contradictory statements
> about price. We probably and thought it was a simple GPL-compatible
> non-copyleft license.
>
> As for the more general question, we think that a program that uses
> Emacs facilities needs to be GPL-covered, but a program that just uses
> the Lisp language could have any license--it is not affected by the
> license of Emacs.
So since ilisp is using GPL'ed Emacs facilities, it doesn't currently
have a valid license. This should get fixed within a few months.
> Of course, if it is not free we should not be
> distributing it at all.
>
> I filed a bug report[4] against the package which
> started a discussion going. The current ilisp developers are likely all
> agreeable to changing the license.
>
> That is good. This part is ambiguous too:
>
> o Any work distributed or published that in whole or in part
> contains or is a derivative of this software or any part
> thereof is subject to the terms of this agreement.
>
> It could mean that these conditions must be the only ones that apply
> to such a larger work, or it could mean that these conditions must
> apply but others may apply as well. The latter is GPL-compatible;
> the former is not.
>
> Could you show me what new license they are considering?
The GPL. They are proceeding with a good-faith effort to contact every
past and current contributor to ask if anyone has objections to a
license change. They also have another goal of assigning copyright to
the FSF in order to eventually get the package folded into Emacs.
See
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=1318794&forum_id=5779
Thanks,
--
Peter S. Galbraith, Debian Developer <psg@debian.org>
GPG key 1024/D2A913A1 - 97CE 866F F579 96EE 6E68 8170 35FF 799E
6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/
> Envelope-to: rms@gnu.org
> Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:08:48 -0500
> From: Peter S Galbraith <psg@debian.org>
> To: rms@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Is Emacs a GPL'ed library wrt elisp code?
> In-Reply-To: Message from Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> of "Wed, 07 Nov 2001 14:04:00 MST." <200111072104.fA7L40Z06699@wijiji.santafe.edu>
> Organization: Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:08:27 -0500
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> I ask you this question a year ago and got the following reply from you:
>
> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > Emacs is GPL'ed and not LGPL'ed, yet it can be looked at as a
> > library. Say I write some code in elisp intended to run on any
> > variant of Emacs (I don't whether this point makes a difference
> > or not). At what point does this code need to have a GPL
> > compatible license to order to be distributed with Emacs (say on
> > a CD) and not break Emacs' license?
> >
> > Sorry, I can't spare time just now to discuss hypothetical questions.
> > Non-hypothetical issues get priority, and right now they are taking
> > all my time.
>
> The situation isn't so theoretical anymore. It turns out that the
> package ilisp[1] isn't licensed under the GPL but yet is distributed by
> the FSF[2]. Its license is basically:
>
> Use and copying of this software and the preparation of derivative
> works based on this software are permitted, so long as the following
> conditions are met:
> o The copyright notice and this entire notice are included intact
> and prominently carried on all copies and supporting documentation.
> o No fees or compensation are charged for use, copies, or
> access to this software. You may charge a nominal
> distribution fee for the physical act of transferring a
> copy, but you may not charge for the program itself.
> o If you modify this software, you must cause the modified
> file(s) to carry prominent notices (a Change Log)
> describing the changes, who made the changes, and the date
> of those changes.
> o Any work distributed or published that in whole or in part
> contains or is a derivative of this software or any part
> thereof is subject to the terms of this agreement. The
> aggregation of another unrelated program with this software
> or its derivative on a volume of storage or distribution
> medium does not bring the other program under the scope
> of these terms.
> o Permission is granted to manufacturers and distributors of
> lisp compilers and interpreters to include this software
> with their distribution.
>
> I think that the clause "you may not charge for the program itself"
> lands it in Debian's non-free archive[3]. It's not considered free
> software by Debian. I filed a bug report[4] against the package which
> started a discussion going. The current ilisp developers are likely all
> agreeable to changing the license.
>
> Do you think that elisp codes that `require' Emacs GPL'ed modules need
> to be GPL'eg themselves? Or is Emacs and all its libraries simply
> considered an interpreter, and the license of the elisp code isn't
> relevant (and could even be closed, released only in byte-compiled
> form)? It would be good to clarify your position on the gnu web pages
> somewhere.
>
> Refs:
> [1] http://ilisp.sourceforge.net/
> [2] http://www.gnu.org/order/source15.html
> [3] http://packages.debian.org/stable/devel/ilisp.html
> [4] http://bugs.debian.org/169243
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Peter S. Galbraith, Debian Developer <psg@debian.org>
> GPG key 1024/D2A913A1 - 97CE 866F F579 96EE 6E68 8170 35FF 799E
> 6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/